' This revision petition arises out of a suit for administration filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 ,on 2-1- 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction which was accepted by the trial Court vide order, dated 3-6-1992. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 2-3- 1993.
2. The petitioners' learned counsel has stated in the very outset that the petitioners do not intend to dispose of the disputed properties. However, he submits that the Shop No,163, Loha Market, Landa Bazar, Lahore was being jointly run by Abdul Hameed, respondent No,5 and Haji Khurshid Alam deceased and Mst. Shama Mansoor petitioner No,2 and that she is entitled to receive her share of the income. He adds that widow of Khurshid Alam deceased also has no source of income and is entitled to get her share in the profits arising out of the joint business. He further submits that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the godown. He claims that only Mst. Parveen petitioner No,1 is the owner to the extent of her share purchased by her.
3. On the other hand, the respondents' learned counsel submits that the will alleged to have been made by Khurshid Alam deceased in favour of Mst. Shama Mansoor, adopted daughter, was a forged one. If at all, it was invalid having been obtained from the deceased during his Marz-ul- Maut. Validity of the will has been challenged by the respondents by way of a separate suit. He adds that the respondents had a prima facie case in their favour. Moreover, the impugned order was passed by the trial Court almost with the concurrence of the parties and does not require interference by this Court. He adds that respondent No,5 who is in possession of the disputed shop will not alienate it.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the trial Court had appointed the arbitrators and the umpire with the consent of the parties. The petitioners have not challenged the said order. The parties have agreed that they shall not further alienate the disputed properties owned or possessed by them. The arbitrators have yet to announce their decision on merits.
Therefore, I refrain from making any observation on the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below appear to be reasonable and fair in the circumstances of the case and do not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5. The learned counsel for the parties have prayed that the trial Court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously. The request appears to be reasonable. The trial Court shall make every effort to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. The revision petition is dismissed with the above direction.